Talk:Jim Berg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

[edit] Notability

The main reason that Jim Berg would be notable is the large influence of his books within the culture of Christian Fundamentalism, mainly in America but throughout the world as well. --Whiteknox 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Berg's notability within Christian fundamentalism. The article obviously needs to be expanded, but Berg himself is beyond doubt, notable.--John Foxe 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the section about criticism of Jim Berg. I thought it was groundless and rather strange myself, considering that Berg's writing style primarily distinguishes itself in being so down to earth. Admittedly, all I have read of him is Changed into His Image, and also I have listened to the Quieting a Noisy Soul seminar. I am unfamiliar with the kinds of criticism leveled against him. If anything, I think he might err on the side of anthropomorphisms which are too down to earth and become irreverent (e.g. "God is always up to something"), although such a judgment is very subjective and I'm not sure how many share such an objection. I do have a slight fear that articles without a critical section tend to get nominated for having POV :-). --Whiteknox 04:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed that sentence, not because it was critical but because it had no citation. What is needed are some credible reviews of Berg's books from reputable sources.--John Foxe 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was worried that I created an article that was going to get deleted. I am glad it is still up. Unfortunately I cannot think of what more to add to this article to remove its "stub class". Can citations from his "Quieting a Noisy Soul" seminary be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.76.144 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whiteknox: it reads here like you have a misunderstanding over Wikipedia policy if you thought that criticisms would be removed due to ambiguity over perceptions of the subject's writing style. John Foxe is correct that citations are necessary. However I would be interested to see if John Foxe can cite where the subject is "beyond doubt, notable" as an author beyond the BJU Press niche. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the BJU Press niche is, but having your works translated into Russian and Chinese would seem to move beyond it unless BJU Press regularly translates its other publications into those languages.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "illustrations of biblical truth..."

Is clearly a POV statement and should not be in a Wikipedia article and so has been altered to read "biblical thought." Doctrine or teaching may be prefered: I'll leave that up to others . Plutonium27 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the words "biblical thought" as unnecessary. The phrase "biblical topics" is in the previous sentence.--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel

Have removed "thousands" from subject's seminar teaching claims - is weasel word and also uncited. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)